DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 15-21 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stryker et al., hereinafter 'Stryker' (WO 2013166003 A1).
In regards to Claim 15, Stryker teaches: A patient repositioning system (Fig. 1) comprising: an air pump (Para 0048: "a pump, fan or compressor"); an inflatable sheet (12 - Fig. 8, Para 0063); a first inflatable support (14a - Fig. 6, Para 0068 and Para 0052) and a second inflatable support of the inflatable sheet (14a - Fig. 6, Para 0068 and Para 0052); the first inflatable support having a first air inlet (30a - Fig. 3) configured to be connected to the air pump and be inflated independently of the inflatable sheet and the second inflatable support (Para 0053: "Similarly, fluid, typically air, is supplied to and optionally evacuated from the respective bladders by one or more inlets/outlets, which are coupled to respective conduits 30a, 30b, such as tubing, which are connected to either the same or different air supply that supplies air to low air loss surface 16.", noting that as air flows through 16 and then through 30a/30b, which is dependent upon which conduit is supplying the fluid, it will then meet at the respective support | further pointing to the 'indirect' connection the air must move between the air pump -> inlet -> and through the respective sheet and inflatable supports); the second inflatable support having a second air inlet (30b - Fig. 3)configured to be connected to the air pump and be inflated independently of the inflatable sheet and the first inflatable support (Para 0053: "Similarly, fluid, typically air, is supplied to and optionally evacuated from the respective bladders by one or more inlets/outlets, which are coupled to respective conduits 30a, 30b, such as tubing, which are connected to either the same or different air supply that supplies air to low air loss surface 16.", noting that as air flows through 16 and then through 30a/30b, which is dependent upon which conduit is supplying the fluid, it will then meet at the respective support | further pointing to the 'indirect' connection the air must move between the air pump -> inlet -> and through the respective sheet and inflatable supports).
In regards to Claim 16, Stryker teaches: The patient repositioning system of claim 15 wherein the first and second inflatable supports each include an inflatable wedge (Para 0068: "the wedge shaped cross-sections of bladders 14a and 14b.").
In regards to Claim 17, Stryker teaches: The patient repositioning system of claim 15 wherein the first and second inflatable supports are permanently joined to the inflatable sheet (Para 0053: "The central seam 28 may be formed by a single weld or multiple welds that secure the upper and lower sheets together to form a central hinge for the respective turning bladders.", Fig. 4).
In regards to Claim 21, Stryker teaches: The patient repositioning system of claim 15 wherein the first and second inflatable supports each include an initial configuration that permits a patient to lie flat on the inflatable sheet (Fig. 1 - shows flat configuration) and an inflated configuration that elevates a portion of the patient (Fig. 7 - shows elevating a portion of the patient) and relieves pressure on the skin of the patient (Para 0045).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Stryker' (WO 2013166003 A1) in view of Reiners et al., hereinafter 'Reiners 2015' (US 20150101126 A1).
In regards to Claim 18, Stryker teaches: The patient repositioning system of claim 15, but Stryker does not explicitly teach, wherein the first and second inflatable support each include an upper wall with a patient-supporting surface, the upper wall being made of an air-permeable material.
Reiners 2015 teaches: wherein the first and second inflatable support each include an upper wall with a patient-supporting surface (20, 22 - Fig. 10), the upper wall being made of an air-permeable material (Para 0066: "The rate of deflation is also a function of the air permeability characteristics of the fabric material. Semi permeable fabric material that allows for a high flow of air through the fabric material would allow for a more rapid rate of deflation of the inflated components (20, 22, 102) than semi permeable fabric material that allows for a low flow of air.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the patient repositioning system of Stryker to include first and second inflatable supports each having an upper wall made of an air-permeable material, as taught by Reiners 2015. Reiners 2015 expressly teaches air-permeable upper walls for inflatable patient-supporting surfaces to control airflow and deflation characteristics. Incorporating such air-permeable materials into the inflatable supports of Stryker would have been an obvious design choice to achieve predictable results related to airflow management and patient support.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Stryker' (WO 2013166003 A1) in view of Reiners et al., hereinafter 'Reiners 955' (US 9554956 B2).
In regards to Claim 18, Stryker teaches: The patient repositioning system of claim 15, but Stryker does not explicitly teach, wherein the first and second inflatable support each include an upper wall with a patient-supporting surface, the upper wall being made of an air-permeable material.
Reiners 2015 teaches: wherein the first and second inflatable support each include an upper wall with a patient-supporting surface (20, 22 - Fig. 10), the upper wall being made of an air-permeable material (Para 0066: "The rate of deflation is also a function of the air permeability characteristics of the fabric material. Semi permeable fabric material that allows for a high flow of air through the fabric material would allow for a more rapid rate of deflation of the inflated components (20, 22, 102) than semi permeable fabric material that allows for a low flow of air.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the patient repositioning system of Stryker to include first and second inflatable supports having air-permeable upper walls, as taught by Reiners ’956. Reiners ’956 teaches that the permeability of the upper wall material directly affects airflow and deflation performance of inflatable components. Applying this known feature to Stryker’s inflatable supports would have been an obvious substitution yielding predictable performance benefits.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Stryker' (WO 2013166003 A1) in view of Flick et al., hereinafter 'Flick' (US 8347436 B2)
In regards to Claim 20, Stryker teaches: The patient repositioning system of claim 15, Stryker does not explicitly teach, wherein the inflatable sheet has a sheet air inlet configured to be connected to the air pump and be inflated independently of the first and second inflatable supports
Flick teaches: wherein the inflatable sheet has a sheet air inlet configured to be connected to the air pump and be inflated independently of the first and second inflatable supports (Col 3 Lines 63-67, Col 8 Lines 49-54, and noting Figs. 9-10 showing the top portion capable of inflating/deflating independently).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the patient repositioning system of Stryker to include an inflatable sheet having a dedicated air inlet configured to be connected to an air pump and inflated independently of the first and second inflatable supports, as taught by Flick. Flick teaches independently inflatable sections supplied by separate air inlets to allow selective inflation and deflation. Incorporating this feature into Stryker would have been an obvious modification to improve operational flexibility and control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davis (WO 2019036458 A1) teaches: An inflatable transfer mattress includes a top panel, a bottom panel having a perimeter sealingly coupled to a perimeter of the top panel to define an internal volume therebetween, a first wedge pocket coupled to an outer surface of the top panel, and a first inflatable wedge. The internal volume is configured to receive an air flow therein. The first inflatable wedge is sized and configured to be inserted into the first wedge pocket and is configured to be transitioned from a deflated state to an inflated state. The first inflatable wedge is configured to rotate a patient to a predetermined angle with respect to the top panel in the inflated state.
Bhat et al., (US 20150052685 A1) teaches: Conformable support systems for conforming to a body are described in which a support assembly may be provided to support particular regions of the body where pressure ulcers tend to form. The conforming support may generally comprise a central portion, a first side portion attached to the central portion, and a second side portion attached to the central portion opposite to the first side portion. Each of the chambers are in fluid communication with one another such that a pressure applied upon the central chamber reconfigures the support assembly from a flattened configuration to an angled configuration in which fluid or gas within the central portion is urged into the first and/or second portions such that the side portions pivot to a predetermined height and angle relative to the central portion and form a conforming channel sized to support a region of a patient body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571)-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673